Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

liphook herald front page - barry (19th Apr 2013 - 13:44:59) Having read the local paper this week, Miss Pike was reading a different document to what was given out to everyone else. The opening line from the internal auditor said that though the council has been through a tricky patch, their basic controls, systems and operations were all tickety-bo and that moving forward won’t be a problem. of course that would be saying something nice - don't want to do that do we!!!! Instead of getting another hatchet job on them, the council should be applauded to employing an auditor who is actually prepared to do the job properly - rather than the nod and a wink guys that did it before. If the blokes before had done the job the good people of Liphook would have known about all the shenanigans years ago. They didn't do their job and the last council would never have published it even if they did. So, I think we should be happy that we've got a new council that are prepared to say it how it is ‘warts-an-all’. Its never happened before. None of us like warts but we can only put the wart remover on em if we know about em. I’m please that the council are putting the whole sorry business behind them. If it had been dealt with before– we could have put it behind us before. Took a lot of courage to grap that nettle. I go to meetings and you can really see and feel the difference now. I wish more people would come, then when they would recognise a hatchet job when they see one.

Re: liphook herald front page - Jaybee (19th Apr 2013 - 14:16:45) "then they would recognise a hatchet job when they see one". Are you, by any chance,referring to how they got rid of Tony Groves?

Re: liphook herald front page - Michael (19th Apr 2013 - 16:34:07) barry, I don't believe you were actually at the council meeting because if you were you would know this document was not handed out, and the council seemed surprised a member of the public had a copy. When they asked questions in the public questions session about the auditors results and recommendations the council chairman struggled to answer!

Re: liphook herald front page - Dawn Hoskins (19th Apr 2013 - 19:05:39) Dear all, The Interim Report of the Internal Auditor was indeed given out at the meeting. At the start of the meeting I made a point of querying this – as Councillors had not yet discussed it. When Mr Burns asked a question on it (which he was able to do because he had a copy in his hand like everyone else), he was told that it was not normal for the interim report to be published until councillors had tabled it for discussion and decide on how to make any changes recommended. There was not a ‘struggle’ to answer, just an explanation that as it had been given out prematurely we would need to debate it as a council before we could debate it in public. Although, like all the other Councillors, I had only a couple of days to look at the report, I was very pleased about it because although the faults of the past have been recognised the internal auditor saw that we now have a clean slate and that past issues are firmly behind us. This Internal Audit was completed by a new company and done in a very thorough and commendable way. Although the internal auditor is not a mind reader, she has made comment on things to cover herself as she did not have the personnel files. It would therefore not have been apparent from the numbers what the previous expenditure was for and the complicated reasons which necessitated it. It is commendable therefore that she refers to it. In addition, at point of writing the report, the costs recovery working party had not yet had it’s first meeting – so it was also never going to be clear what was to be evaluated. This can only be done after the meetings have taken place. There is no way that the internal auditor could look into the future to determine these things, but to send in the form to the insurance company costs nothing so can not harm the elector in anyway. She was right to cover herself and state that she would be concerned if anymore expenditure was laid. The internal auditor understood that we had had many turbulent meetings regarding staff matters, and that these could only be conducted by way of exempt sessions, (many of them were additional meetings) held to discuss only those pressing staff matters. She rightly points out that now that staffing issues have settled down we can stick to the normal timetable of meetings. Over all, I think she did an excellent job. It is not some sort of fire and brimstone affair that The Herald would like it to be - but 'hey' - what has reality got to do with it!

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (22nd Apr 2013 - 11:51:26) Somebody must have given out copies of the Interim Report of the Internal Auditor at the meeting because Mr Burns had a “copy in his hand like everyone else” according to Councillor Hoskins. She saw it, barry must have seen it, they came from somewhere, but Michael must have blinked and missed it. So there is going to be one of the council’s behind closed doors secret sessions for the council to secretly debate the report before it is debated in public even though it has been “tabled” at a council meeting questioned and discussed and reported on. A new type of transparency and openness we haven’t heard of. As Councillor Hoskins says that “past issues are firmly behind us” then why are the council wasting any more of our money or their time recovering money from insurers and third parties. Faceless councillors of the “costs recovery working party” have decided to do all this at some hush hush secret meetings. There is no information available on when or where these secret meetings were held, which councillors are involved, or who the third parties are which could cost us all more money. There is nothing to show for it on the council website. “faults of the past” would have to be faults in the last six months as the council website shows the reports are done twice a year. The reports for the last two years, which I think should be four reports in total, have not been published on the council website. The issue of the £31,000 is going on secretly behind closed doors and does not reflect what elected parish councillors put in their May 2011 election flyers on this website. Councillor Jerrard said if he was elected then he would make sure that “Meetings of the Council are transparent and democratic with no more deals behind closed doors”. Councillor Croucher said “He would like to make the Parish Council much more open and transparent in its dealings with Liphook’s parishioners and to this end he will continue his on-going campaign to bring this about”. Councillor Evans said “Accountability and transparency of Councillors, this is lacking currently, however so very important, as they are responsible for spending your money on delivering amenities and services for the benefit of the constituents”. £31,000 or more was spent by the council with the auditor saying “it was not apparent from the files I have checked what the objective of the expenditure actually was”. I can’t see where the Liphook Herald said that the auditor had stated “she would be concerned if any more expenditure was laid”. Councillor Hoskins may have meant to say “paid”. I don’t think that thorough and commendable auditors would make any statements like this to “cover themselves”. Where is the transparency, openness, honesty, accountability and the open discussion and debate about the £31,000. All we get is secret meetings and two councillors giving us their opinions and making us look at accounts which aren’t published together with some meaningless figures. As said on this thread “hey - what has reality got to do with it”.

Re: liphook herald front page - Jane Ives (22nd Apr 2013 - 12:22:34) Kat It is such a shame that you haven't taken the time to read what has actually been written in the various threads on this website, and look at the facts of this situation. Firstly, can I make it absolutely clear that the internal auditors report was attached to the agenda that was handed out at the parish council meeting on 25th March which is why Mr Burns had a copy - he was in attendance at this meeting. The APM followed this meeting but this item was not on the agenda. Mr Burns raised questions at the earlier council meeting but because it was felt that these questions were better answered in the public arena of the APM, Mr Burns was asked whether he would mind if answers would be given at the meeting later that same evening. He then asked his questions and answers were given and are reflected in the minutes. This is the parish council being transparent. We did not, and do not, have anything to hide. Of course, if you had attended the meeting you would have seen that for yourself. No-one is holding meetings 'in secret'. Working parties go away and do their work and then have to report to the committee that has set them up, in this case Finance & Policy. So any actions necessary will not be decided by the working party but by the full committee...members of the public can attend these meetings, so we hope that you will come along Kat. Currently, the £31k is being discussed with insurers as the council's belief is that these costs will be covered. No final decision has been made by the insurance company yet, but negotiations are taking place as I write. What the auditor was getting at was that she didn't believe any more money should be spent in recovering this money. Can I assure you that the very reason the parish council has set up a working party is that so no more money is being spent on recovering costs. We completely agree with the auditor that no more expenditure should be made, we are seeking to recover these costs by using the resources of our own parish councillors - the only cost is their time which as you know is free! I have posted already today on 'Parish Council Financial Information' that the 2012 accounts will be published as soon as possible. We have had some issues with sickness in the parish office and it has somewhat delayed things. The internal audit report is in the public domain Kat, nothing is being debated in secret. It does need to be discussed by the parish council at our next meeting on 29th April (which you are very welcome to attend) as we need to ensure that any points of improvement can be noted and acted upon. If you would like to get hold of a copy of it then please contact the parish office who can supply it to you. You may then be able to read the facts rather than the edited highlights that were published in The Herald.

Re: liphook herald front page - Dawn Hoskins (22nd Apr 2013 - 12:27:37) Kat, I am sure that you are quite deliberately twisting everything I am saying – so I will make a final comment on this and will no longer speak on it. Why do you assume [incorrectly] that discussions regarding the annual return are to be held behind closed doors? You are wrong in that, the council has always tabled the annual return and the checking of the audited figures etc in open session. That is not something that this council has decided to do it is what the council has done for years and years. However, we cannot answer questions on a bit of paper that we haven’t seen yet. The Auditor has not even finished her work and we can’t sign the finances off until the next meeting when she has finished it. So, what exactly are you asking for? As stated ‘clear as a bell’ at the last meeting, the council are not spending a SINGLE PENNY in recovering monies. I don’t think there is any ambiguity in how that was presented a the meeting and there is none in how I am saying it. WE WILL NOT BE SPEDING ANY MONEY IN SUBMITTING PAPERS TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY. We do not have any hush hush secret meetings. That is a pure figment of your imagination. Our figures, for every single penny spent are published on paper and online. If you were unable to understand them, you could have asked in the Parish Office or any one of the many Councillors – who would have shown you. If every single penny is made public – unless you are in another reality – it is not a secret!! My advice is this – why don’t you actually come in to the Parish Office to collect the papers, alternatively, come to an actual meeting to ask a question – instead of relying on rubbish paper reports which go out of the way to misrepresent the facts. When I see your face at a council meeting and you have actually seen us as human beings, discussing things in the open, with complete transparency – then I may feel more obliged to talk to you. Until then, you are simply repeating hashed-up gossip – of which I am no longer going to answer – as you don’t believe my responses anyway.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (22nd Apr 2013 - 18:46:39) Councillor Jane Ives I have read the posts on this site and the information provided by the council and on the website and in the Liphook Herald. I do not appreciate being told by you that I haven’t read what has been said on this website. I have and that is a fact. Thank you for clearing up how the report was issued as that is helpful. It is fact that I did not question what Mr Burns said or what the answers were. I read that for myself, my only assumption being that the reports from meetings are accurate. It is fact that the “costs recovery working party meetings” are being held in secret, behind closed doors, hush hush meetings, exclusions or whatever you want to call it, because the public cannot attend them. There is no information in the council or Finance and Policy meeting reports about the costs recovery working party meetings and none of their decisions can be seen anywhere not even the decision to have negotiations with the insurers which you have now told us about. It is fact that there is no information about the third parties. In my opinion none of this is transparent or open and therefore it is secretive. It is fact that Councillor Croucher said that £31,000 had been expended. It is fact that the auditor stated her concern over expenditure by saying “The council has expended the significant and material amounts of public money in the last 18 months” and that it is not clear “what the objective of the expenditure actually was”. It is fact that none of the costs recovery working party information is in the public domain and as councillors are being used as a resource perhaps we should all know what our elected representatives are doing with their time. It is reported as fact that the council have spent £31,000 and it is fact that the public have not been told by the council what this money has been spent on or what the total costs were as reported in the Liphook Herald. This is the issue and the council or whoever is responsible should address it.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (22nd Apr 2013 - 18:50:02) Councillor Dawn Hoskins I am not twisting anything you are saying. Behind closed doors, secret, hush hush, excluded meetings, sessions, or whatever you want to call them are all descriptions of exactly how the costs recovery working party is operating. There was ambiguity in the report at the Annual Parish Meeting because when Councillor Croucher was asked what additional costs would be incurred he replied “There would be not additional costs incurred in pursuing an insurance claim”. You have now cleared this up by saying “the Council are not spending a SINGLE PENNY in recovering monies”. I have never questioned the accuracy of the figures published on paper or online. The issue is that £31,000 was expended, and it is fact that the public have not been told by the council the details or breakdown of what this money has been spent on. The costs recovery working party have not been discussing things in the open or with any transparency. I am only commenting on or questioning what has or hasn’t been published by the council and the quotes from the Liphook Herald and what is on this website. How kind of you to tell me, a parishioner, that I am repeating hashed up gossip which you are no longer going to answer. What did you say in your election flyer “Lets get computer friendly; Get e-mail friendly and get parishioner friendly!”

Re: liphook herald front page - AH (22nd Apr 2013 - 20:16:04) The Interim Internal Audit is available from the Parish Clerk by email. I requested and received a copy last week. Use the email address below; you do not need to go and collect a paper copy. I spoke to the Clerk and he told me that I could have a copy of the report but councillors would not answer any questions until after they had discussed the report in "excluded session" on 29 April. Report is short and an easy read for anyone who would like to gain a better insight into the work of the council. email: clerk@bramshottandliphook-pc.gov.uk

Re: liphook herald front page - Jane Ives (22nd Apr 2013 - 20:23:31) Ok Kat...Firstly I do wish you would tell us your full name so that we know who we are talking to. No-one seems to know who you are as we don't know anyone by the name of Kat who attends parish council meetings and clearly you seem to be quite interested in parish affairs.  Are you yourself posting in secret?  Perhaps it's time we met you face to face and can I suggest you come along to the council meeting next Monday 29th and introduce yourself or we can arrange a meeting at anytime to suit you? No secrets! Dawn's posting above, on the 19th April,  very clearly explains our position.  Perhaps you could look again at this? And let's include the auditors opening shot, not reported by The Herald..."the council has been through a very tricky patch, but the basic controls, systems and operations are sound so moving forward should not present a problem". Kat, this is exactly what this council is trying to do...move forward. We have much to look forward to and I am sure the majority of parishioners would like to leave all this behind, recover the £31k without additional costs, and get on with all the developments that we are currently working on for the benefit of all.

Re: liphook herald front page - peter richardson (23rd Apr 2013 - 10:39:46) Fact - secret meetings of the working party attempting to recover costs of 31,000 do take place. It seems most unlikely that these costs would be able to be recovered on insurance. What possible reason could there be as no loss has taken place?

Re: liphook herald front page - Jane Ives (23rd Apr 2013 - 11:26:59) Peter, would you rather the parish council sat back and did nothing about recovering these costs? We feel it is very important that we try and claim back £31k. I could completely understand your criticisms if we were sitting back doing nothing about recovering this money. I am sure most of Liphook's parishioners would not relish spending an evening watching parish councillors going through very boring paperwork, making insurance claims etc etc which is why a working party has been established. They have no power to make decisions, they have to report anything back to F&P Committee or to full council - meetings where the public are invited to attend. Not secret Peter, but necessary. You make it sound like we are running some massive undercover operation here! How about waiting for the facts now rather than speculating on likely outcomes?

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (23rd Apr 2013 - 11:53:38) Councillor Ives I quote your words on this thread “No-one is holding meetings in “secret”” and “the internal audit report is in the public domain Kat, nothing is being debated in secret”. AH posted yesterday to say that she had spoken to the Clerk last week who had sent her a copy of the Interim Internal Audit but councillors would not answer questions until they had discussed the report in an “excluded session” on 29th April. Your parishioners cannot attend excluded sessions, secret meeting, hush hush meetings or whatever you want to call them, and they are all being held behind closed doors. What you are doing is secretive, it is not transparent, not open, and now there is question of honesty and the truth. You are holding meetings in secret and in my opinion we are all being misled.

Re: liphook herald front page - Jane Ives (23rd Apr 2013 - 12:57:40) Kat (Mr, Mrs??) This item is not being discussed in either public or excluded session next week despite what AH was told last week. This is a fact - please check with the parish office if you need clarification. I'm assuming you know nothing about the workings of a parish council - working parties are tasked to establish what action needs to be taken about a particular item. They have to report back to council for decisions, they cannot make decisions. For example, I am currently chairing a working party for a potential new skate park. Oh and guess what, 2 members of the public are on that working party - you can call that secret if you like? I'm also on the Radford Park working party - great plans afoot - again, members of the public are on that working party. So, no hush hush secret meetings, or whatever you want to call them!

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (23rd Apr 2013 - 14:13:39) Jane Ives wrote the following: "I am sure most of Liphook's parishioners would not relish spending an evening watching parish councillors going through very boring paperwork, making insurance claims etc etc which is why a working party has been established." No Jane that is where you are wrong and what a bold assumption to make on behalf of Liphook parishoners. That is exactly what I would like to spend an evening doing, actually seeing what does go on behind those tightly locked doors. Perhaps the council could make it easier by setting up a webinar so we can see and hear all the scheming and plotting with our own eyes and ears from the comfort of our living rooms. Get the councils IT team to set it up, I'm sure there are councillors that have a very good relationship with with the Dark Group. This is just another case of "we'll just have to take the councils word for it" a word that I myself don't hold in very high regard, too many times too many excuses.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (23rd Apr 2013 - 14:41:53) Councillor Ives It is completely pointless to attend the meeting on 29th April if it is not going to be discussed. £31,000 or more is a lot of money so what makes up the figure and who are the third parties. Simple questions and should be simple answers. Councillors are not answering questions on it so that's pointless as well. I still cannot see the decisions in the Finance and Policy reports that show what the costs recovery working party are doing, when they started, which councillors are doing it, and when and where they met. Peter Richardson has said that it is fact that secret meetings of the cost recovery working parties do take place. Councillor Ives is it yes or no. Still none the wiser as to the £31,000 or more and the total costs which is the real issue and which you and your colleagues chose to ignore.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (23rd Apr 2013 - 14:44:04) Well said Liz.

Re: liphook herald front page - Jane Ives (23rd Apr 2013 - 14:46:38) Well Liz why don't you come along on Monday evening and see for yourself all the scheming and plotting that takes place at our monthly full council meeting which will include reports, as usual, from all the committees and working parties? 7.30pm Monday 29th April at The Peak Centre, Midhurst Road. Public all welcome as usual. Kat - no more discussion here please, come along on Monday and find out for yourself.

Re: liphook herald front page - frances white (23rd Apr 2013 - 20:04:42) On reading this thread it is almost laughable - Kat full of outrageous indignation on the transparency of the Parish Council. There they sit at their monthly meetings, the public invited, everyone knowing their full names, the public fully able to come and ask questions. Here posts Kat - does anyone know his real idendity - hiding behind anonymity - and questioning both their integrity and transparency. Perhaps he (or she) should let us all know his/her real name and stand up and be counted. Give me the Parish Council any day.

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (23rd Apr 2013 - 20:51:17) What does it really matter what peoples names are on this site. I've always been a believer that if you have to wear a name badge, then nobody cares what your name is and that applies here. Would it really matter if you knew Kats surname would it change the sentiment of what he or she is saying, I very much doubt it. Why are some people convinced that Kat is not just someone called Kat. Surely only the people who have a reason to doubt that Kat is just Kat see some kind of truth or uncovering of truth in the words that he or she says as to be threatened in some way and feel the need to question his or hers identity. The real question that we all want to know is what the £30,000 was spent on? Oh and before you say anything I'm Liz and would it change what I have said if I added my surname no it wouldn't but you can have it if it will make you feel better. Baines there you go.

Re: liphook herald front page - Frances White (24th Apr 2013 - 08:20:15) Liz - what kind of soap opera do you live in? This is sleepy old Liphook not a television drama. It will be interesting to see if the Kats of this world will be transparent enough to do something of substance for the village by turning up for the litter pick on Sunday rather than stirring up trouble on this site.

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (24th Apr 2013 - 09:48:12) Frances White, £31,000 could have paid for a lot of litter picking!! and if it is£80,000 as the Herald suggests then Liphook could have had a street cleaner for the next 5 years!! or a new skate park or to employ a traffic warden for Liphook or a dog muck cleaner for the recreation ground or even speed limit signs on all the roads or pay for better facilities for the football club . So the reality rather than the soap opera is that we have nothing!! zero, nil, nada!! and our council can not tell us what it has all been spent on.

Re: liphook herald front page - Frances White (24th Apr 2013 - 12:21:54) Well Liz if you believe everything you read in the Herald that just about says it all. I rest my case.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (24th Apr 2013 - 15:00:42) Councillor Ives You should remember that the electors did not have an opportunity to vote you onto the Council. You were voted on by your friends and colleagues. You serve us the parishioners, and it is not the other way around. I will come to a council meeting when I want to, as I have done in the past. I will not be told by councillors what to do or not to do in an arrogant and patronising way. It does not surprise me that so few people come to council meetings. It could be up to £80,000 that the council have wasted. It may be even more for all we know. All parishioners want is the truth from the council, but it is not forthcoming.

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (24th Apr 2013 - 15:16:31) Frances, Of course I do not believe all that is in the herald as you remember I said "and if it is £80,000 as the Herald suggests" but as the council are so persistent on not actually telling us anything I can only imagine that the sum is somewhere close to this figure or it is a lot more, there is certainly no evidence from them in defensive of these figures so far!. You obviously have some kind of affiliation with the council or one of its members because any sane member of the Liphook community would be outraged and wanting answers from the council rather than leaping to their defence. You obviously believe everything the council say or do not say!! I rest my case.

Re: liphook herald front page - Jane Ives (24th Apr 2013 - 15:47:51) It is such a shame that threads like this degenerate into mud slinging and accusations. I was, as you say, co-opted onto the parish council last November by applying in writing to the parish office as 4 councillors had resigned. Six people applied for those places - I hope that I was voted on on merit - none of the other parish councillors, bar one, had ever met me before. Kat, if I have been arrogant or patronising then I apologise that was not my intention. I think it is such a shame that people voice such strong opinions on here when it is really difficult for councillors to answer individual questions about some quite complex subjects. Far, far better for you to ask the questions in the right setting where the whole team of councillors are on hand to answer your questions and would be more than happy to do so. You seem very frustrated at this parish council, I don't know why, and I am just trying to suggest a way that you could ask your questions and get the answers you want. What I would say is that at any council meeting there is a public participation session - always - where members of the public can ask questions about matters that are either on the agenda or not on the agenda. This is why I am inviting you to come along. You can ask your questions in the right place to the right people.

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (24th Apr 2013 - 17:00:30) Jane Ives, I seem to remember you wrote plenty of accusations and were involved in plenty of mud slinging when you came on here as Jane G, yet you seem to have forgotten those days, well it doesn't take a genius to work out that you are one and the same person. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you are a member of the council, that kind of behaviour is suddenly beneath you. Well unfortunately I can not attend the next council meeting as I am working, but I'm sure one of the councils cronies will get to ask the first question about the money and then if anyone else tries to ask again in more depth the council will say that the issue has already been covered, this tends to be how the open questions sessions have gone in the past on pressing issues. I can't see why the answer can not be given now but the council needs to concoct a plan of how to answer the questions and fob us off with their usual gibberish. I wait with baited breath for the outcome I'm sure someone I know will attend and fill me in.

Re: liphook herald front page - AH (24th Apr 2013 - 20:20:51) Having been told last week by the clerk that the Interim Internal Audit report would be discussed in "excluded session" on 29 April after which the council would be able to answer questions, I asked the clerk today why it had not appeared on the agenda for the meeting. I was told that it had been decided that the report would not be discussed again as a full discussion was held at the last meeting and that any member of the public who wished to ask questions had therefore had the opportunity to do so.

Re: liphook herald front page - Terry Pate (25th Apr 2013 - 00:45:58) Kat & Liz, why don't you stand for the council if you can do a better job.

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (25th Apr 2013 - 09:05:20) Terry, I don't think you will find many people queueing up to clean up their mess!! I think it is a self made problem and the people who created it should be the ones to sort it out and come clean about all of it. Also do you think they would let anyone join that tight knit gang of theirs without some kind of secret handshake!! I seriously doubt a couple of new councillors would have any impact on the situation or get an invite to those oh so transparent F&P meetings!!! Anyway it's more than likely that the main culprits are already trying to find a way out, I wouldn't be surprised if you see a few of them move on to other councils before it ruins them.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (25th Apr 2013 - 14:59:15) Councillor Ives Thank you for your apology. I am not going to repeat all the questions that have been raised on this and other threads. My post of 23rd Apr 2013 14:41:53 sums it up. The \"right setting\" is utterly irrelevant. The council should put the answers on their website so we can all see them, because the clerk has told a member of the public that the Interim Internal Audit Report will not be discussed again. There is now a further question over who made that decision, why, and when. The council just need to answer the questions and be honest and open and act with transparency and integrity.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kevin Jackson (25th Apr 2013 - 21:07:21) There have been so many posts on this subject that, while they may seem to vary, all either seem to be either defending or justifying the present Parish Council’s actions or attacking them. I refer to the original post by Barry which referred to the article on the front page of The Herald. When I read the article in The Herald it seemed to provide answers to questions posed many posts both on this Thread and the one headed “Parish Council Information.” If The Herald was able to publish this information why did not the Parish Council publish it on its web site or at least provide it at the APM instead of just a vague reference to the £31,000 incurred in the dismissal of the Parish Clerk? The only reason I can think of is that they did not want this information to be in the public domain even though it is taxpayers money?” In the same article, Eleanor Greene of Do the Numbers Limited who compiled the interim internal audit review for March, 2012, warned “The Council should give consideration to putting the whole sorry business behind them, looking forward and redirecting both officer and member time to ensuring that best practice is maintained from now on – and that resources of the council are expended to make the parish a better place to live in the future while learning from past mistakes. Mrs Green criticised the accounts investigation working party, commenting “The council has expended significant and material amounts of public money in the last 18 months on lawyers and human resources advisers regarding the former clerk.” She stated “it is not apparent from the files I have checked what the objective of this expenditure actually as.” She then went on to say that it is not clear that the council has evaluated 1. Who they wish to recover the funds from 2. Why they feel the funds were paid in error What percentage change they have of recouping the funds and 3. how much more it will cost to recoup the funds. Mrs Green claimed. “ It is there not clear that devoting on-going council resources to such activties will actually be of benefit to the elector.” That last sentence from a professional person says it all – as has been said in previous posts, I do not think there is any chance of recouping any of this money through an insurance claim. There has been no loss or damage unless one is referring to the dismissed Clerk. If there is anyone who takes issue with the accuracy of Gabrielle Pike’s article they should take a leaf out of Cllr Jerrard’s book which is “If it’s not true, why don’t they sue?” This is his oft quoted comment when he has posted/written some piece of unpleasantness about a person/persons, safe in the knowledge that most people do not have the money to spend on litigation. Barry ends his post by saying that he can really see a difference now in the present Parish Council. The only difference that I can see is that this council has run up a bill of at least £31,000 and possibly as much as £80,000 of taxpayers money and has been and continues to be, less than transparent.

Re: liphook herald front page - Barry (26th Apr 2013 - 15:32:56) Quite frankly Liz and kat - who ever you are - you are either completely mad or just like typing a lot whilst hiding behind your keyboard. I say mad because even when you are told where to get the information - you keep on about it here - which is not a council website but run for free by a local bloke. If you know you are doing something in an incorrect way and not getting a result - and keep on doing it - again - and again that makes mad - or bad. Mad because it makes no sense so why would you do it unless you find it difficult to see sense - or bad because you have some sort of ulterior motive and are trying to disrespect the new parish council for some reason. Either way - everyone reading this is, like me, laughing at you. Just go to finance meetings if you are this interested. That my friend is where you ask the question and get the answers. Parish councillors don't always read this blog. If they do post on it - as I am sure you know very well - they post as individuals. so can only give you their own opinion and not the opinion of the Parish Council. So stop blinking well asking for the Parish Council to give you answers here and grow up.

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (26th Apr 2013 - 16:39:22) Barry, Thank you for your outburst, it has is a pleasure to read and put so eloquently. I can't speak for Kat but I am simply a concerned member of the Liphook community expressing my views on the subject of the council spending taxpayers money irresponsibly, I can't see why you would think this is mad?? What seems mad to me is your need to defend them so forthrightly, they are in most cases the elected representatives of this community and as the electorate it is our duty to question their actions if we do not feel that they are working with the best intentions for this community. I will ask them for this information using every channel available to me be it via this forum, face to face and in writing. What I do find strange is that considering the council will not tell you what the money is spent on even if you ask them and when you ask the Clerk he can't tell you either!! I can't see why you are so against this. I am not hiding behind a keyboard I have been to the Haskell centre and asked the same questions but no one can answer me with the whole story just a small part of it!! To reference your point about going to finance meetings if this were possible I would go to finance meetings but they are rarely open to the public as the F&P comity meetings are behind tightly locked doors. The decisions about how this £31,000+ money was spent on were obviously made quite a while ago and as far as I can tell there is no information anywhere available to any member of the public to state when these financial decisions were agreed upon, who agreed them and why they were necessary, which I believe we have a right to know, you obviously feel differently about the matter and would rather not know!!! Keep on laughing Barry because the joke is on you!!

Re: liphook herald front page - Steve (26th Apr 2013 - 16:46:24) Well said Barry!

Re: liphook herald front page - Jane Ives (26th Apr 2013 - 16:57:12) Liz Attached agenda for the last F&P meeting which includes the section for public participation as always. bramshottandliphook-pc.gov.uk/...

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (26th Apr 2013 - 18:21:12) Jane Ives, Thanks for that but what I really need is the minutes or any records of the F&P meetings or any council meetings where the decisions about what this £31,000 was to be spent on and who made these decisions. If you could give me all of this info in a quick link like you just have that would be great as this is what I would like to know. I was actually not in the country for the date of that meeting so does not really have much relevance to me other than your attempt to prove a point about one particular meeting. To tenuously quote a famous Tom Cruise film "Show me the minutes!!" I look forward to the link.

Re: liphook herald front page - JWM (26th Apr 2013 - 19:15:35) I have to agree with Kat and Liz. Their point seems to be what has happened to all of this money and was it well spent etc. Being told to look forward is patronising to say the least. Councillor\'s making comments on this forum and using the excuse as the views expressed being their own is frankly very unprofessional. I feel the answers to people\'s questions on this and other threads ( if replied to by a member of the council ) should be given in an official capacity or left to the council meetings. This really makes our parish council look rather embarrassing and as amateur as I and others it suspect it to be.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kevin Jackson (26th Apr 2013 - 20:13:55) Barry why do you have to be so insulting.? You start your post by saying \"Quite frankly Liz and Kat - who ever you are either completely mad etc etc.\" Kat and Liz do not insult you by starting their posts with \"Barry whoever you are\" so why do you? I find that people who dole out insults usually have a very weak argument and are defending the indefensible. I assume that as you started this Thread you did read the article in The Herald by Ms Pike. May I respectfully suggest that you read it again giving particular attention to Mrs Green\'s statements and observations. In case you do not have a copy to hand I will summarise the salient points. Mrs Greene criticised the accounts investigation working party, commenting \"the council has expended significant and material amounts of public money in the last 18 months on lawyers and human resources advisers regarding the former clerk.\" She stated that \"It is not apparent from the files I have checked, what the objective of this expenditure actually was.\" She goes on to say that \"the council seems to be seeking to recover costs from the various parties\" and she added \"but it is not clear that the council has evaluated who they wish to recover the funds from, why they feel the funds were paid in error and what percentage chance they have of recouping the funds etc etc\" Mrs Green also criticised the parish council over confidential minutes, stating the council uses confidential minutes \"more than is generally considered good practice\" PLEASE NOTE THAT STATEMENT BARRY. Her report continued \"particularly with regard to the awarding of new contracts, there are ways to keep such issues in public session.\" Open your eyes Barry - Mrs Greene has hit the nail on the head and that is exactly what we, who are questioning the tansparency of this parish council, are talking about. Mrs Green is a professional and her statements should be taken very seriously. As to asking questions at the parish office or attending meetings, this is just a waste of time. Someone did ask for a copy of the accounts at the APM only to be told by Peter Stanley, the parish clerk that there were none and on other Threads electors state they have been to the parish office, asked questions and received no answers. No one is laughing at us, Barry and I doubt very much anyone is laughing at you. What is happening at the moment is far too serious for laughter and there is a real cause for concern. I say well done to Liz and Kat for taking the time to place such well balanced and eloquent posts on Liphook Talkback. Bramshott and Liphook need such people.

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (28th Apr 2013 - 22:12:23) Thank you kevin for your kind words and also for your excellent and detailed summing up of the whole situation. I have sent a letter to the council asking for the details and if they do not respond or turn down my request, I will be taking matters further by going to the ICO. I think anyone who feels they have a right to this information should do the same and if they get no response then below are the details of how you should go about getting it. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/if-your-request-is-turned-down Once again thank you.

Re: liphook herald front page - dawn (29th Apr 2013 - 09:49:24) The information is available. Go to the Parish Office and ASK for it if you can't find it on the web.

Re: liphook herald front page - Richard J Edwards (1st May 2013 - 15:32:08) As a local parishioner, I recall watching the previous Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council up to May 2011, being continuously vilified by the majority of the present councillors of Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council, and members of the public, for “wasting money”. This was for spending approximately £11,000 in connection with the then Clerk, who had suffered a campaign of systematic bullying and harassment over a considerable period of time. We now have the situation where the current council are understood to have spent between £31,000 and £80,000 in order to sack the Clerk with all sorts of defamatory claims and allegations. In my opinion this debacle smacks of desperate people desperately clutching at straws, because its primary objective was to settle an old vendetta. As I recall at the time, when Mr Newman was Chairman, he and several other councillors and Mr Groves were accused of acting frauduantly. Yet here we have a situation involving many times the previous amount of money and I have still not seen a shred evidence to support this expenditure an opinion clearly shared, it appears, by Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council’s internal auditor. I also recollect that during Mr Newman’s tenure, Mrs Easton, the current chairperson of Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council, voted against the holding of exempt or secret sessions on every occasion. Mrs Easton claimed there should be no secrets, as the public had a right know. I wonder how she reconciles the current secrecy of the Parish Council with her previous stance. It is my opinion that there is more to it than meets the eye. I am also curious to know if there is a connection to the events concerning Mr Trodden of Greatham Parish Council, as featured in last week’s Sun newspaper and Mr Jerrard his Justice and Anti-Corruption Party colleague, a Bramshott & Liphook councillor. I recall a posting on the local Liphook website from someone I believe called John, congratulating Mr Jerrard and Mr Trodden for re-opening the Greatham shop. This premises was recently exposed by the Sun for some very lewd behaviour, all of which can be read about in the Sun newspaper. It is my understanding that a council grant was given to Mr Trodden for that shop. He also has an alcohol licence, and clearly, it would appear from the article in the Sun, that Health and Safety precautions in the kitchen were not all they should have been. This raises the following issues. Is Mr Trodden fit to be a councillor, is Mr Trodden going to offer to repay the grant, and should Mr Trodden be holding an alcohol licence. For Mr Trodden to say that he was not aware of what was going on in his own business partially funded by public money, in my opinion, is appalling. Mr Trodden should do the honourable thing and resign immediately. I am also confused by Mr Trodden’s ability to be a Labour Party Member and a member, indeed a founding member, of the Justice and Anti-Corruption Party. I recall one of the questions that Mr Trodden asked of Mr Newman, which is now applicable to him. Under the current circumstances described above, it would now be appropriate for Mr Trodden to answer some question himself. Does Mr Trodden have any police arrests, and if so what for, and does he have any convictions? Mr Trodden should come clean, be transparent in these matters, just as he requires of everybody else. This would also be an ideal opportunity for Mr Jerrard to clarify any involvement Mr Trodden and his shop. Mr Jerrard should also clarify his position regarding his membership of The Justice and Anti-Corruption Party, and standing as a UKIP nomination in the Hampshire County Council elections in Whitehill and Bordon, and as a District Councillor in Liss at the same time. Over the years I have been made aware of people claiming that the views and opinions that they have submitted to Liphook website have not always been posted. I have decided to copy this letter to the Liphook Herald because in my opinion, they continue to remain unbiased and unafraid to publish the truth. I hope that Liphook website will do the same.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kevin Jackson (1st May 2013 - 20:07:49) An interesting post from Richard J Edwards even if it does wander a little from the subject of this Thread. I, too was wondering why Cllr Jerrard is standing as a UKIP candidate in the forthcoming County Council elections and not his own party JACS. Two reasons spring to mind: 1. Cllr Jerrard feels that he has more chance of being elected if stands under the UKIP banner. 2. His own party known as the Justice and Anti-Corruption party purports to uphold transparency and honesty. Perhaps Cllr Jerrard feels that it would be rather hypocritical to stand as a JAC candidate in view of what is beginning to be revealed about Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council. Returning to the main subject of this Thread namely Ms Pike's article in The Herald, I have now trawled through pages of accounts figures and found one or two payments that appear to have been spent in connection with the dismissal of the parish clerk. For example there was an amount of £4,300 paid to SW19 solicitors who I believe were employed by B&LPC to build a case against the now dismissed clerk. I am sure that was not the only payment to them and to others, but if anyone else takes the trouble to read through pages and pages of figures, I am sure they will understand the problem. Nothing is very clear at all. While looking through these figures a couple of things puzzled me. The first was that there seems to have been very, very little VAT shown which is odd as VAT applies to almost everything. I am sure that the council can claim VAT back, yet there is hardly any VAT recorded. The second was a NET monthly payment in May 2012 of £11,500 paid to employed staff in the parish office. I believe that there are 4 paid members of staff so if this amount was divided equally between them, they would receive £2,875.each per month. Of course it will not be divided equally, some will be paid more than others, but £11,500 is a very large sum of money to be paid for 4 members of staff, some of whom are part time.

Re: liphook herald front page - D. Advocate (2nd May 2013 - 00:46:55) Kevin, You should really take note of the responses from several of the parish councillors you are challenging. My take is that truth will out eventually given what was going on some time ago. Time it may take, but, the facts will reveal themselves. The current group of parish councillors are right not to respond to the baiting on this site from what seems to be a concerted assault from a group of individuals with what seems to be vested interests in the outcome of parish council investigations into past practice. Were I a serving councillor, the last thing I would waste my time on is replying to posts placed by what almost could be classified as trolls

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (2nd May 2013 - 12:20:11) D. Advocate, The strange thing is that if you have been using this forum for the last few years you will know that one or two councillors have been the main contributors to discussions on this forum, mainly Dawn Hoskins. So now that the public are asking well structured and thoughtful questions that delve into the actions of the council or particular councillors it is suddenly behaving like an internet troll. What does strike me as odd is the lack of response from the usually very vocal councillors who normally can not wait to discuss matters here. To me it seems that this silence speaks volumes. I also think you will find by looking through this particular thread that anyone who has been searching to for the truth on this important matter has not be rude or degrading to members of the council, nor has there been any berating, so far the only rudeness or use of derogatory terms has come from people trying to defend the councils behaviour. You must also realise that the truth does not always come out especially with regards to politics, it is usual practice in politics to release the truth only when it has no bearing on the present, i.e it comes out years after the event when the whole thing has been forgotten. There are far too many examples throughout history of this behaviour to list but there are cases where pressure and persistence brings this truth to the forefront sooner rather than when it is too late. So instead of waiting for scraps of information to be handed down from the councils table I asked for it in a polite manner and was directed to the councils website where I still can not find it by trawling through the accounts, it is very simple the council just need to clarify the accounts so it is in their words open and transparent where the £31,000 plus has been spent and not up to the public to decipher it on their behalf. I also applaud the other people on this forum who seek the truth and do not sit on the fence with their only option of finding out this information is to keep their fingers crossed and wait.

Re: liphook herald front page - anon (2nd May 2013 - 13:59:49) It has not been the ex-clerk who was bullied and harassed but many many members of staff some old some ex some new plus lots of other people who swore witness statements saying the same. You should be ashamed of yourself for not having pity on us people and trying to bury the shocking behaviour which we had to put up with, for YEARS, without being looked after by those who should have been protecting us. The evidence, is in the legal bundles which are confidential because we don’t want our names spread around. Ask Tony for a copy of his if you don’t believe it! As far as the money goes, all in black and white on the finance report which you get every month. We had a vendetta against us and you blame the people who have sorted it out. Are you blind?

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (2nd May 2013 - 15:11:13) Anon, I may be wrong but this seems like this has come from a council employee, and again it is very rude and insulting. How am I blind? I don't know how I am supposed to know about something when I have no knowledge of it in the first place. Blindness is "being shown something and still not being able to see it". It is not "being shown nothing and being expected to see it" It also seems rather strange that you know what the other witness statements said? Surely if you made a confidential statement it would be yours and yours alone and you would have no idea what others have said unless you colluded with them prior to giving your statement/s. A vendetta? Have you spoken to your employers about coming on here and got permission to speak about confidential documents? as you are aware they also frown upon using anonymous posts, I am surprised that Jane Ives and Dawn Hoskins haven't told you, much like they told Kat and I that we are not who we say we are. It seems they only do this when it is not something they agree with. One thing you have to be is consistent otherwise it seems very prejudiced. I go back to my original point that the figures are not in black and white as I have been through all the accounts and like many others am finding it incredibly hard to find the payments. Please could you tell us all how much money was paid out and for what. I ask this as you seem to know quite a fair bit.

Re: liphook herald front page - Rob Tyner (3rd May 2013 - 06:21:01) Liz, I don't know you, however I'm sure you would benefit from switching off your computer and getting some fresh air every now and then. I put it to you to support the Parish Council rather than knocking them down and "ruffling feathers" here on talkback. I've lived in Liphook for 47 years, and still am of the view that your attitude is a negative one. As far as I've experienced, Liphook villagers get stuck in, pull together to make this village a great place to live. Unless you are prepared to roll up your sleeves and get involved then do not keep criticising others on here - your attitude is all wrong. You get all your snippets of information from gossip and unless you witnessed the previous PC and that in place then you really have no place to be so critical.

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (3rd May 2013 - 07:53:52) Rob Tyner, More insults from people defending the parish council. I quote your words "I'm sure you would benefit from switching off your computer and getting some fresh air every now and then" I feel I have always put forward my point without insult and tried to keep my objectives clear that I am just seeking the truth about the people of Liphooks council tax money and where it has been spent. I myself have lived in this village for over 20 years and I am not trying to knock the parish council down. I am trying to find out information that I regard is very important to the community. If you feel that £31,000 which I add is not gossip or a snippet it is the the figure that councilor croucher has said has been spent is not worth investigating then you yourself are not as you said "prepared to roll up your sleeves and get involved" If you find my attitude negative then I am sorry but I feel that you have misunderstood my motive which has only ever been to find out where and what this money has been spent on, for the good of the community. I feel this is a positive step for the community as if it has been spent carelessly then wouldn't you rather know. I will turn my computer off as you have so politely asked me to do once I have a clear answer from the council on what and where the money was spent.

Re: liphook herald front page - A. Ryan (3rd May 2013 - 10:11:36) Surely as the Parish Council is not a private company but in the public domain, for the "public" should not ALL matters regardless of the sensitivity be made public. As the council is using our funds should they not give a detailed account of ALL private matters. Perhaps people do not want names bandied around, but once you put yourself in a public arena, then you become accountable to the people. If bulling has occurred within the council, why the secrecy? Who bullied who, and if so was compensation paid, and if so, out of the public purse? If that is the case, then the public are surely legally allowed to be told. As I know no councillor I have no axe to grind, only to say this all sounds incredibly amateurish. Having written on other posts about certain topics, I do really have to wonder if we really are in safe hands. And yes I was born here fifty five years ago and have seen the village change dramatically , and some would say not for the better.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kevin Jackson (3rd May 2013 - 20:19:39) D advocate How can I take note of the responses from several of the parish councillors (I think it is only Cllr Ives and Cllr Hoskins who are responding) when they do not actually provide answers to simple questions but just state that it is all on the web. It is not all on the web. All that is on the web are lists and list of figures. What we are asking for is a simple set of accounts detailing on what the £31,000 of taxpayers money was spent. If The Herald is right it is probably a lot more than that. While we are on the subject of ignoring, my questions re: VAT and the seemingly excessive amount of money paid to parish employers in May 2012 was also ignored! I heartily agree with Liz that the only people placing posts which contain insulting and derogatory remarks on this Thread are the people defending the parish council. It is not only unnnecessary, but extremely juvenile and detracts from their postings. It is what children and immature adults do when they are losing an argument. I also agree that Cllrs Ives and Hoskins are quick to criticise those who ask contentious questions for not putting their full names on their posts, but never criticise anyone doing the same thing who place posts supporting the parish council such as Anon and D Advocate. The words amateurish and double standard spring to mind.

Re: liphook herald front page - D. Advocate (4th May 2013 - 01:19:05) Well, Kevin, It seems to any reasonably minded individual that there may well be a concerted attack on the current parish council from friends or supporters/families of the previous incumbents whos actions, when in office are being questioned at the moment. I believe , from comments on this site, that "due process" is being carried out by the council to clear up issues inherited. You clearly will not wait for the outcome for your own vested reasons. The debate is still interesting, though, if not always intelligent

Re: liphook herald front page - bobby (4th May 2013 - 09:35:14) Well, the argumernt seems to be where they have spent the money. Do you all realise that the Parish Council has been sitting on nearly £250,000 pounds for some time. More importantly should be what are they going to spend ther money on!!

Re: liphook herald front page - Kevn Jackson (4th May 2013 - 14:28:26) D. Advocate I have no vested reasons but I think you do. We all waited a long time for the reasons for the clerk's dismissal - no reasons except vague references to bullying have ever been given and at the moment it seems very unlikely that they will be disclosed. So much for patience. I do not think those who are asking questions are friends/families/supporters of previous members of the parish council. I think this is in your imagination and I find your inference insulting. You cannot seem to comprehend that there are people out there who just want some answers and this has nothing to do with "vested interest". Common sense tells me that something is not right and I don't think I am the only one feeling this. It has been suggested that everything is put behind us and to "let the parish council move forward". You cannot build if there is something rotten in the foundation.

Re: liphook herald front page - A. Ryan (4th May 2013 - 16:00:54) D. Advocate, Your quote, "The debate is still interesting, though, if not always intelligent" A bit condescending isn't it? Must people be endowed with a certain intelligence to be allowed to have a say on this thread? I do hope you are not a Councillor, as that would be showing your true colours, not perhaps the best shade. I am sure more people would like to know precisely what had occurred, and not have some half baked theories given to them that have been dangled like the proverbial carrot.

Re: liphook herald front page - John (5th May 2013 - 17:22:51) It does seem that the only people being bullies are the anonymous people on this thread! Maybe these anonymous people are the present councillors and maybe the ex clerk was set up all along and he was the one being bullied? Seems like a big cover up to me.

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (6th May 2013 - 21:56:19) I agree with A. Ryan about the following: "I am sure more people would like to know precisely what had occurred, and not have some half baked theories given to them that have been dangled like the proverbial carrot." I have now tried every channel but the council will still not give me an answer so I can only assume that they have something to hide, if it is was something perfectly innocent then why wouldn't they just say. Also John has just said "maybe the ex clerk was set up all along and he was the one being bullied? Seems like a big cover up to me." Although I do not know too much about all this there was one comment from an earlier post by someone calling themselves "anon" that I believe is an employee of the council that read "It has not been the ex-clerk who was bullied and harassed but many many members of staff some old some ex some new plus lots of other people who swore witness statements saying the same." It is the "witness statements saying the same" part that is quite disturbing and does strike that there may have been a bit of plotting behind the scenes as they should not know what the other statements content contains, but I may be wrong. Anyway my point is that it is very hard to trust an organisation that will not give any straight answers to public questions and has employees making confidential statements that involve collusion. If anyone can work out where the £31,000 or more has been spent from going through the accounts on their website please share, or maybe Councillor Croucher can step up and let us all know as he was the one who said that £31,000 had been spent.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (7th May 2013 - 14:49:06) Still no information on the £31,000K - £80,000K? spent by the Parish Council. Councillors will be able to give the answers at the Finance and Policy Committee meeting tomorrow night 8th May as there is a meeting shown on the council website. I cannot find an agenda for the meeting on the council website, so they may be having a "secret" meeting instead, or giving them out at the meeting. I looked on the notice board at the Haskell Centre and there is nothing there.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (7th May 2013 - 17:32:06) Now I am suspicious. Within an hour and a half of putting my last post up the Finance and Policy Meeting date has been changed on the Council website with an agenda to go up later. No explanation as usual. They must be having secret behind closed door meetings and probably can't agree or perhaps they just forgot or were too busy scheming over something else. In my opinion very amateurish and unprofessional. So much for keeping to the schedule as the auditor said. No delay needed to tell us how much they spent and on what. £31,000 to £80,000 of public money.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (7th May 2013 - 23:46:32) Perhaps part of the £31,000 to £80,000 was a £388 dictation kit purchased for Mr D Jerrard! I have been unable to find any meeting that ageed to do that. Look at the income and expenditure listed with minutes of the council meeting on 29th April. £100 of the cost recovery could be the HMRC penalty fine. What's that all about and why did the council get penalised by HMRC.

Re: liphook herald front page - John (8th May 2013 - 16:52:22) Still no reply's from any of the councillors! Why are none of you answering any of the simple questions? What are you trying to hide???

Re: liphook herald front page - John (8th May 2013 - 21:19:50) While we are on the subject of people not replying I note Mr Trodden (who normally has lots to say) has still not answered Mr Edwards post earlier on this thread. Strange how all of those who use to have the most to say have fallen silent! I wonder why??

Re: liphook herald front page - Dawn Hoskins (9th May 2013 - 12:07:52) John, I can tell you why I am not contributing and will not do so further after this explanation to you. It is because this is mainly a conversation between Kat and Liz (who may or may not be real people of this parish) who have been told that the figures which are given out at every finance and policy meeting contain the cost of every item incurred. There is nothing secret about it and nothing to hide behind whatsoever. If these people spent half as much energy actually coming to meet their parish councillors (which to my knowledge they have NEVER done - either Full Council or Finance and Policy Committee), rather than researching every election flyer and manifesto ever written, trawling through ancient postings on this site to see who said what years ago and trying to slag off and belittle the PC based on newspaper reports and gossip – then perhaps they would be taken seriously. the contention that the parish council are having meetings in some sort of clandestine manner is completely untrue, and could only be made by person who have absolutely no idea how an organisation such as a local council can run – or get any work done at all. This is not a surprise to me as the people making these suggestions have never attended a meeting. In the short history of this thread this allegation was made approx 25 or so times – working on the premise that if you sling enough mud – some might stick. Well it is rubbish. We do not have secret meetings – working parties are how work gets done and every working party reports to the committee that formed it. Simple – straightforward and transparent. [I have included some silly comments – scroll down to end] The sad truth is, that we have very little salacious news these days and this makes for boring reading in the local rag. It is a shame for people who like to lap up conspiracy theories, gossip and rumour that we have a whole range of councillors at the Parish Council who bring a wealth of knowledge and experience, who work very efficiently together in a friendly and collegiate manner without arguing, shouting, without giving snippets of gossip to newspapers, or worse – selling stories to newspapers, and without complaint. All in our own time, and free of charge for the benefit of the community. Gone are the days when councillors would physically pick up chairs to move so they wouldn’t have to be near ‘the others’. That was despicable behaviour and unfortunately wide spread – but it no longer happens. Despite comments to the contrary, we don’t have a mess to clear up. There were tremendous problems in the past for many many reasons, but that is in the past and not our future. Those who come to our meetings will have noticed how great the meetings are now. How productive they are, and how open we are with our figures. These people, ask questions when they are concerned and get immediate answers. They are asking the correct people in the correct place. This is what Kat and Liz need to do. It has been explained that this forum is not owned or run by the parish council. That has been made quite clear. People post here as individuals and not councillors so can never give a ‘Council Opinion’ – the Standing Orders prohibit this. Council opinion or press statements etc can only be made through the parish office or announced at council meetings. We, as individuals can therefore post only our own opinions. That is not amateur – it is freedom of speech. If you have been told that this is not a forum that you will ever get a formal response from the council, but then go on to repeatedly DEMAND that which you will never get – you are not behaving in a logical or sensible manner. The assumption I make when these demands continue is that they are being made for another motive. I wrote on the 22.04.13 - When I see the faces of these people at a council meeting I may feel more obliged to talk with them, but until then, I am not going to discus and further if you don’t believe my responses anyway. (The only reason I have responded to John is that the thread has become so cumbersome that you may not have found it) As you may be aware –The people making these comments have not come to meet any of us councillors or ask any questions of us at a council meeting yet. This is my final post on this thread. If you would like to attend the next meeting I will be glad to speak with you. Our Agendas are published on-line and on the notice boards every month. Kind regards to all : : : : : Below is a selection of ‘conspiracy theory’ comments. Faceless councillors of the “costs recovery working party” have decided to do all this at some hush hush secret meetings / They must be having secret behind closed door meetings and probably can't agree or perhaps they just forgot or were too busy scheming over something else / I cannot find an agenda for the meeting on the council website, so they may be having a "secret" meeting instead/ I would go to finance meetings but they are rarely open to the public as the F&P comity meetings are behind tightly locked doors/ I seriously doubt a couple of new councillors would have any impact on the situation or get an invite to those oh so transparent F&P meetings/ can’t join that tight knit gang of theirs without some kind of secret handshake/ Peter Richardson has said that it is fact that secret meetings of the cost recovery working parties do take place / set up a webinar so we can see and hear all the scheming and plotting with our own eyes and ears / What you are doing is secretive, it is not transparent, not open, and now there is question of honesty and the truth/ You are holding meetings in secret and in my opinion we are all being misled / Your parishioners cannot attend excluded sessions, secret meeting, hush hush meetings or whatever you want to call them/ they are all being held behind closed doors / Fact - secret meetings of the working party attempting to recover costs of 31,000 do take place / Behind closed doors, secret, hush hush, excluded meetings, sessions, or whatever you want to call them are all descriptions of exactly how the costs recovery working party is operating / It is fact that none of the costs recovery working party information is in the public domain / the “costs recovery working party meetings” are being held in secret, behind closed doors, hush hush meetings, exclusions or whatever you want to call it, because the public cannot attend them / The costs recovery working party have not been discussing things in the open or with any transparency / All we get is secret meetings / The issue of the £31,000 is going on secretly behind closed doors / council’s behind closed doors secret sessions

Re: liphook herald front page - Diane (9th May 2013 - 18:14:43) Well done Dawn. What a lot of sense you do make.Most of the people of Liphook and Bramshott are very thankfull for the present council they have. Poor Barry the original contributer to this post must have wondered what he had started.

Re: liphook herald front page - bobby (10th May 2013 - 15:29:43) If you want the answer to the queries then go along to the finance meeting on Wednesday 15th at 7.30pm in the Haskell Centre.

Re: liphook herald front page - Kat (10th May 2013 - 17:54:32) John I am not surprised with the response you received from Councillor Dawn Hoskins. In my opinion I do not think it does the said councillor any favours nor the council, it does not change anything, and continues to make our elected councillors look amateurish and unprofessional and downright rude. ps Councillor Dawn Hoskins "is not going discus any further" so your not in any danger from that falling on your head. Thank goodness for that LOL

Re: liphook herald front page - Val Lazenby (11th May 2013 - 14:06:41) Why do the councillors or their supporters post insulting comments/questions on Liphook Talkback when they feel questioned or criticised? Why is it that these same supporters of BLPC target those who criticise and ask questions, with the assumption that, because they do not put their full names, they have something to hide or are not geniune people. The majority of people who place posts on Liphook Talkback only use nicknames or christian names. No comment is made about them. More importantly the councillors and their supporters NEVER pass derogatory comments about people who only give christian/nicknames if their posts are written in support of the parish council. Double standard or what!! I give below the following quotes from various posts on this Thread alone. In my opinion all these comments/questions in the various posts are inapporiate, irrelevant or rude - sometimes all three. All posted by councillors or supporters of the parish council. April 22 by Cllr Ives "Ok Kat...Firstly I do wish you would tell us your full name so that we know who we are talking to. No-one seems to know who you are as we don't know anyone by the name of Kat who attends parish council meetings and clearly you seem to be quite interested in parish affairs. Are you yourself posting in secret?" What does it matter if she/he attends meetings etc. etc? April 24 Quote by Frances White - "Liz - what kind of soap opera do you live in? It will be interesting to see if the Kats of this world will be transparent enough to do something of substance for the village by turning up for the litter pick on Sunday rather than stirring up trouble on this site." April 26 Quote by Barry (and no one asks his surname) "Quite frankly Liz and kat - who ever you are - you are either completely mad or just like typing a lot whilst hiding behind your keyboard." Also from the same post "So stop blinking well asking for the Parish Council to give you answers here and grow up." May 2 Quote by D Advocate (I wonder if that is his/her real name - I doubt it) "Were I a serving councillor, the last thing I would waste my time on is replying to posts placed by what almost could be classified as trolls." May 2 Quote by Anon (No supporter of the PC has queried this one) "You should be ashamed of yourself" and "Are you blind? " Patronising and rude in that order!! May 3 Quote by Rob Tyner "Liz, I don't know you, however I'm sure you would benefit from switching off your computer and getting some fresh air every now and then." May 4 Quote by D Advocate "You clearly will not wait for the outcome for your own vested reasons. The debate is still interesting, though, if not always intelligent" May 9 May Quote by Dawn Hoskins "It is because this is mainly a conversation between Kat and Liz (who may or may not be real people of this parish." Very edifying! and these are only from this Thread. What a good example our councillors and their supporters set to the rest of us. NOT. I will conclude this post with two quotes from Dawn Hoskins on this Thread which show true inconsistency. April 22 by Dawn Hoskins "Kat, I am sure that you are quite deliberately twisting everything I am saying – so I will make a final comment on this and will no longer speak on it." One would assume from this post that Dawn Hoskins would not be placing any more posts on this subject." Not so. 9 May by Dawn Hoskins "This is my final post on this thread." Dawn Hoskins seems to saying the same thing twice on the same Thread ie that she will not longer be posting on this Thread. Let us hope that this time she means it as I do not think her posts answer any questions other than to say attend meetings and go to the parish office. Well run and efficient parish councils post information on the web which can be clearly understood. Not so with Bramshott and Liphook and still we do not know the real reasons for the Clerk's dismissal or the details of the £31,000 - £80,000. In addition no answer has been given to a question raised in a post by Kevin Jackson dated 1 May as to why there is virtually no VAT shown on the accounts.

Re: liphook herald front page - John (13th May 2013 - 20:37:02) Nicely said Val

Re: liphook herald front page - Liz (15th May 2013 - 13:44:24) I have to agree with Val what she says sums up exactly how I feel about the way in which I have been treated by councillors and their supports on this forum. As you can see from Vals posting they have on more than a few occasions accused me of being someone different to the person I say I am which I do find rather strange and very prejudiced as many people have been on here with completely made up names and have not been subjected to these accusations. The only reason being that they are in support of the councils actions. On the subject of the £31,000 or more that still has not been fully explained it just shows you what a farce the whole thing is that a councillor has the time and energy to pick through this forum and find numerous quotes that she feels criticise their actions instead of picking through the accounts and giving a detailed response to what we are asking for. I think that would have been a far more productive use of time and would go some way to resolving the matter.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home